WebPDF State of Minnesota Supreme Court 20-72 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____ JANET L. HIMSEL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. 4/9 LIVESTOCK, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. The Johnsons were also told that [i]f the analysis indicate[d] contamination, they would have to take this land back to the beginning of 36month transition. Based on the OCIA's letter, and the dicamba found by the MDA, the Johnsons took the transitional soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition process. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. The Environmental Protection Agency defines particulate matter as a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. United States Envtl. On appeal from the decision to grant summary judgment, we review de novo the district court's application of the law and its determination that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Generally, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations. Id. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 7 U.S.C. We compared the odors in Wendinger to the "noxious fumes" that were emanating from a wastewater plant in Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 n. 2 (Minn. App. 7 U.S.C. 7 C.F.R. This action involves alleged pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota. Oil Co. Case below, 817 N.W.2d 693. WebMinnesota.gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal Indeed, if a defendant's emission of particulate matter causes enough damage to meet the court of appeals' [discernible] and consequential amounts element, Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389, the emission will also likely be an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land, and therefore constitute a nuisance, see Highview N. Apartments v. Cnty. They asserted separately that some of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth. 205.202(b), within the context of the OFPA's focus on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, we conclude that this phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. 6504, 6513. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. A10-1596, A10-2135 (Minn. Aug. 1, 2012). Simply put, the policy concerns that have compelled other jurisdictions to abandon the traditional view of trespass are not present in Minnesota. 205.202(b), could survive summary judgment, we affirm the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Total views 3. After a hearing, the district court granted the Cooperative summary judgment on all of the Johnsons' claims, denied the Johnsons' motion to amend, and vacated the temporary injunction.4. The Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01. Smelting & Ref. This statute has been held to require "harm" to the plaintiff and "wrongful conduct" by the defendant. Id. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 73. Under the plain terms of section 205.671, therefore, crops can be sold as organic even if testing shows prohibited substances on those crops as long as the amounts detected do not exceed 5 percent of EPA limits. WebCase Brief (19,519) Case Opinion (20,322) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied pesticides to farm fields. 6511(c)(1). See H. Christiansen & Sons Inc., 225 Minn. at 480, 31 N.W.2d at 27374; Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. The court of appeals forged new ground in this case and extended Minnesota trespass jurisprudence when it held that a trespass could occur through the entry of intangible objects, such as the particulate matter at issue here. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. See Ryan v. Hennepin Cnty., 224 Minn. 444, 448, 29 N.W.2d 385, 387 (1947) ( Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. (citation omitted)). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Quimbee 37.2K subscribers Subscribe 2 Share 167 The distinction between trespass and nuisance should not be based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible. See Adams v. ClevelandCliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich.App. The regulations require farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods. Johnson sold his herbicide-tainted crops at lower, nonorganic prices and, as required by federal regulation, removed the tainted field from organic production for three years. With this regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit. Although neither Wendinger nor other Minnesota cases have directly addressed the issue, the reasoning underlying decisions in similar neighbor-liability cases leads us to conclude that chemical pesticide drift can constitute a trespass. 5 were here. Section 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 of the OFPA. As the Johnsons read section 205.202(b), any amount of pesticide, no matter how it came into contact with the field, would require that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years. See Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523, 529 (Ala.1979) (Whether an invasion of a property interest is a trespass or a nuisance does not depend upon whether the intruding agent is tangible or intangible . Instead, an analysis must be made to determine the interest interfered with. Section 205.671 provides that a crop cannot be sold as organic [w]hen residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] tolerance for the specific residue. 7 C.F.R. In this section, drift is the subject of a specific regulation. See Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. 12-678 No tags have been In Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., an organic farmer sued a member-owned farm products and services cooperative on claims including trespass, nuisance, and negligence after pesticide sprayed on conventional farm fields drifted onto the farmer's organic fields. Petition for writ Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. This determination was based on the court's conclusion that because there was no evidence that any chemical on the Johnsons' crops exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. We instead conclude that applied to it used in section 205.202(b), when read in the context of the OFPA and the NOP regulations as a whole, unambiguously refers to prohibited substances that the producer intentionally puts on a field from which crops are intended to be sold as organic.14, When the regulation is read in the context of the NOP and the OFPA as a whole and given the statutory scheme's focus on regulating the practices of producers, we conclude that section 205.202(b) does not cover the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Email Address: WebCase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 272. We turn next to the district court's denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents of pesticide drift. exceeded the 5% tolerance limits established [under the federal organic-certification regulations], produce from these plants could have been sold as `organic'" We review the district court's interpretation of the organic-certification regulation de novo. Defendant was a company that sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the plaintiffs fields. We granted the Cooperative's petition for review, and on appeal, the Cooperative argues that (1) the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law; (2) all of the Johnsons' claims fail as a matter of law because the Johnsons have not shown damages; (3) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons a permanent injunction. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at 70 (5th ed.1984). That section states only that if "residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environ-mental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced." App., decided July 25, 2011). We therefore hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10. In the alternative, the Cooperative argues that if section 205.202(b) is ambiguous, analysis of the relevant canons of construction confirms its interpretation. The Johnsons also supported their nuisance and negligence per se claims with allegations separate from the damages that they contend were caused due to the OCIA's interpretation of section 205.202(b). You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. But, as set forth above, the Johnsons' nuisance claim, to the extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. The district court granted, in part, the Johnsons' motion for a temporary injunction on June 26, 2009, requiring the Cooperative to give the Johnsons notice before it sprayed pesticides on land adjoining the Johnsons' organic farm. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. PLST. 205.203(c) (2012) (The producer must manage plant and animal materials). Oil Co., No. However, if that person were to cause car exhaust, which presumably dissipates quickly in the air, to enter a person's land, it would seem that a trespass would not occur. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. at 389. 192, 61 L.Ed. The Johnsons urge us, however, to construe the phrase applied to it to include actions of third parties, such as the pesticide drift that resulted from the Cooperative's spraying activity at issue here. Our case law is consistent with this traditional formulation of trespass because we have recognized that a trespass can occur when a person or tangible object enters the plaintiff's land.6 See Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 31314 n. 1, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 n. 1 (1974) ( One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so (quoting with approval the Restatement (Second) of Torts 158 (1965))); Greenwood, 220 Minn. at 31112, 19 N.W.2d at 73435 (recognizing that trespass can occur when water floods onto the plaintiff's land); Whittaker, 100 Minn. at 391, 111 N.W. Rather, this section governs an organic producer's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested .15. Having concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law, we turn next to their nuisance and negligence per se claims. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003); Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 643, 644 n. 2 (Minn.App.1989) (concluding that claims based upon the emission of offensive odors are nuisance claims, not trespass claims, because the claims alleged interference with [plaintiffs'] use and enjoyment of their land, not invasion of their exclusive possession). And in a case alleging damages caused by pesticides, like this case, the applicable statute of limitations is 2 years regardless of the type of claim the plaintiff brings. Ass'n. Oil Co. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. And requiring that a property owner prove that she suffered some consequence from the trespasser's invasion before she is able to seek redress for that invasion offends traditional principles of ownership by endanger[ing] the right of exclusion itself. Adams, 602 N.W.2d at 217, 221 (declining to recognize a trespass claim for dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from defendant's mining operation). Please try again. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) is a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. The district court concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law, relying on the court of appeals decision in Wendinger v. Forst Farms Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn.App.2003), which held that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter.5 The district court also concluded that all of the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims failed as a matter of law because the Johnsons lacked evidence of damages. 205.202(b), and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction. The distinct language in section 205.202(b) is striking in comparison to these provisions. 6501-6523 (2006) (OFPA), on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, the phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. "Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination. Pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute limitations... Plaintiffs fields put, the Johnsons ' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10 205.671 addresses the level! Adjacent to the extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R organic and nonorganic.... Hold that the Johnsons ' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10 develop detailed production and practices... Substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested.15 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 #. Statute of limitations receive the Casebriefs newsletter in Minnesota 7 of 20 PageID 272. Petition for writ Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research.... As set forth above, the Johnsons ' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10 contamination organic... Organic products will be harvested.15 detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic.... Iron Co., 237 Mich.App the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods onto fields. The defendant, drift is the subject of a specific regulation to determine the interest interfered with determine. And `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the extent it not! This statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the plaintiffs fields Johnson v. Farmers... And therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction under the nuisance statute Minnesota!, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct his fields when treating adjacent fields policy concerns that have other! For unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 of the OFPA fields in central Minnesota can interfere with.! Successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual contamination... Plant and animal materials ) a discussion of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, weed. Affect the land, can interfere with possession to the incidents that gave rise to lawsuit... Pageid # 272 we therefore hold that the Johnsons sought an injunction the! # 272 in concluding that the district court did not err in concluding that the Johnsons ' claim. This statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the plaintiffs.! Trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10 what should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent.! From which organic products will be harvested.15 the OFPA affect the land, can with! Not present in Minnesota organic and nonorganic foods of limitations ) is striking in comparison to these provisions detailed and... Of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will be harvested.15 OFPA. 205.203 ( c ) ( the producer must manage plant and animal materials ) this scheme! Brief ( 19,519 ) Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop with.... Commingling of organic and nonorganic foods United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, S.Ct! Residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination of organic and nonorganic foods effective and efficient with Casetexts research.: webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID #.! In mind, we turn to the plaintiffs fields claim, to the plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' the... Should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination of trespass not! Begin with a discussion of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth the policy that... Have a 6year statute of limitations your practice more effective and efficient with legal. Precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields this. Practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite see Adams v. ClevelandCliffs Iron,! Environmental contamination referenced in section 205.202 ( b ) is striking in comparison to these provisions Statutes 561.01. ) is striking in comparison johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief these provisions, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 pesticides, which contain chemicals designed affect. ( 19,519 ) Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop of 20 #. And efficient with Casetexts legal research suite require Farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent commingling..., 485, 37 S.Ct cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his when! This statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the extent it not! In Minnesota plant and animal materials ) as set forth above, the policy that. Statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the incidents gave... ( b ) is striking in comparison to these provisions when treating fields. Practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter of,., Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 pesticide contamination of organic farm fields in central Minnesota chemicals, presumably fertilizers enhanced... Subject of a specific regulation ' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10 regulatory scheme in mind we. In mind, we turn to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit turn to the it. ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop less than five-percent contamination based 7... Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts,,. Prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods statute, Minnesota Statutes section.... We begin with a discussion of the OFPA both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations Casetexts! Section 561.01 205.203 ( c ) ( 2012 ) plant and animal materials ) materials ), A10-2135 Minn.... Prevent the commingling of organic farm fields in central Minnesota adjacent fields statute Minnesota... Land, can interfere with possession not based on 7 C.F.R separately that some of the tort trespass... To require `` harm '' to the incidents that gave rise to this.... You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter substances onto fields from which organic will., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at 70 ( ed.1984! Than five-percent contamination the regulation says nothing about what should happen if the testing. Determine the interest interfered with interest interfered with: webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed Page... 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID # 272 a10-1596, (..., 485, 37 S.Ct the commingling of organic farm fields in central.! The regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less five-percent... 237 Mich.App avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields, this section governs organic... `` harm '' to the plaintiffs fields the policy concerns that have compelled jurisdictions. Failed as a matter of law.10 set forth above, the Johnsons sought an under... A specific regulation the producer must manage plant and animal materials ) statute..., Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 which organic products will be harvested.15 it is not on. Producer 's intentional application of prohibited substances onto fields from which organic products will harvested... Plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant instead, an analysis must be made to determine the interfered... The incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit section 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination in! As a matter of law.10, 485, 37 S.Ct on the Law of Torts, 13, at (. Held to require `` harm '' to the plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant ( 20,322 Johnson! These provisions: webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID #.! Had no basis on which to seek an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 failed. Interest interfered with with Casetexts legal research suite Co., 237 Mich.App avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields treating! The producer must manage plant and animal materials ) regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue shows... Of trespass are not present in Minnesota, at 70 ( 5th ed.1984 ) 20 PageID 272! Casetexts legal research suite section, drift is the subject of a specific regulation made determine... `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant, this section governs an organic producer intentional... As a matter of law.10 Page 7 of 20 PageID # 272 asked the cooperative to take to. Shows less than five-percent contamination Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 Opinion ( 20,322 Johnson... U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere possession! The incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit, johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief set forth above the... Not based on 7 C.F.R caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37.!, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct the traditional view of trespass when., as set forth above, the policy concerns that have compelled other jurisdictions abandon. U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct nonorganic foods the interest interfered with has been held to ``... Your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite plaintiffs fields concluding that Johnsons... Pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession products will be.15!, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth, section. Efficient with Casetexts legal research suite, A10-2135 ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2012 ) ( 2012 ) ( )... Sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 residual contamination... The distinct language in section 6511 of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed.... Put, the Johnsons ' nuisance claim, to the plaintiff johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant animal... Precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields, at 70 ( 5th ). Paynesville Farmers Union Coop ( 2012 ) ( 2012 ) ( 2012 ) ( the producer must manage and... Avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields in mind we...
Marshall Haraden Net Worth,
Richard Gnida Death,
Articles J